mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021041.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "215",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page215 of 221\nA-415\nM6SQmax1\n1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a\n2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.\n3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity\n4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a\n5 minor on at least two separate occasions.\n6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated\n7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this\n8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a\n9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this\n10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing\n11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress\n12 who emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences\n13 for sex offenders.\n14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis\n15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start\n16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I\n17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.\n18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary\n19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a\n20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the\n21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered\n22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,\n23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor\n24 statements which are \"among the least illuminating forms of\n25 legislative history.\" NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021041",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page215 of 221\nA-415",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a\n2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.\n3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity\n4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a\n5 minor on at least two separate occasions.\n6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated\n7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this\n8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a\n9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this\n10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing\n11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress\n12 who emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences\n13 for sex offenders.\n14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis\n15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start\n16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I\n17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.\n18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary\n19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a\n20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the\n21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered\n22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,\n23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor\n24 statements which are \"among the least illuminating forms of\n25 legislative history.\" NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021041",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Sentencing Commission",
      "Congress",
      "NLRB",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "A-415",
      "396 F.3d 515",
      "137 S. Ct. 929",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021041"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to specific guidelines and commentary."
}